November 5, 2011

The Republican governor, who appeared before about 300 people at a public policy breakfast at Chicago's Union League Club, saw his speech interrupted by union-backed Occupy Chicago protesters for about six minutes before they left the event.

About 50 people who purchased tickets to the breakfast began chanting minutes into Walker’s remarks, reciting slogans such as “Union busting. It’s disgusting.” And “We are the 99 percent.” They also criticized Walker for being allowed free speech rights while blaming Mayor Rahm Emanuel for Chicago police arrests of 300 protesters who refused to leave Grant Park after an 11 p.m. curfew.

The rudeness is sickening. I don't understand how the protesters imagine that they will win support from anyone that way. They do seem driven to preventing Walker from ever speaking, but in fact, he did speak after they left. He said:

"The bottom line is, no matter how loud you shout, the facts are the facts. The facts are that our reforms have worked and continue to work in the state of Wisconsin.”

What's the correct spelling — "mic" or "mike"? It's mike, obviously! Do you know any guys named Michael who spell their nickname "Mic"? Imagine 2 Michaels, Mike and Mic: Which one do you want to have a beer with?

ALSO: There's a big debate about spelling in the comments at that last link. I participate a lot in the debate, saying things like:

"Since when are our elected officials entitled to an expectation that we will not be rude to them? Since when do they deserve our automatic respect?"

When an invited speaker takes the lectern at a dignified event where there is an audience that has assembled to hear him, and people who did not themselves draw an audience decide to claim that platform for their own self expression, they cross a line, and it is unacceptable except in the most extreme situation (eg, Hitler is speaking).

Cookie,The people who had paid to hear Gov. Walker speak on his side of the story, probably does not feel that way about it.You are totally ignoring the rudeness and worse shown to the paid guests and also the hosts.

And, generally, to all the rest of us who do not agree with your views.

Well Robert, if we are to the point that speakers should not be allowed to speak messages we disagree with, where do we go from here?

Is every talk by a politician fair game? I went to a 3 hour event at the Capitol in Spring. It was the only 3 hours over a period of months during which the pro-Walker side wanted to assemble and hear speeches.

Your side indulged in juvenile noise making and vicious attacks for the duration. Even screaming f bombs at a 14 year old.

This on the heels of the phony calls for "civility".

This obnoxious behavior is not helping the tantrum throwers. Keep it up. It's not going to end well for your team.

no, it's not rude and no it doesn't make him look better.It's really just a "gotcha" moment (sorry for that spelling)it's just an announcement to him and others of his ilk that their time is over, their day in the sun is over, the citizens of america woke up and "We're not going to take it anymore!"

Since when are our elected officials entitled to an expectation that we will not be rude to them?

Because a society cannot resolve disagreements peacefully without basic consideration for others.

When one side abandons that, it doesn't stop at shouting people down. It moves on to violence. The same mentality that justifies shouting down someone at an event like this - taking it over, violating the implicit contract they agreed to when they bought tickets not to ruin the event for everyone else - will, next, justify violence to shut up Walker or whomever they hate at the time.

They take the debate out of the realm of a respectful exchange of ideas, and into a realm of violent suppression of ideas they disagree with. First, by shouting them down and destroying the ability of the other side to have a discussion, and then when that fails, by using physical violence to intimidate the opposition.

It also spurs violence by the other side because the screamers have violated the implicit contract of a peaceful disagreement by suppressing their opponent's ability to be heard. It puts the oppressed in the position of those 250 people at the Walker speech who were not screamers: either they passively sit and have their right to hear the speaker destroyed, or they are forced to take the violence to a higher level in response. (Notice how some people were getting out of their chairs, wanting to do something more than be simply victimized by the loudmouths.)

Just watching it made me want to punch some of those loudmouth fuckers in the face. That's what they're leading us towards.

Note that this was not an isolated yell out like "Mr. President, peace in Vietnam!" There were 50 individuals chanting loudly for 5 minutes.

They are the argument against themselves. They sound and look ugly and scary. It's not a good protest. It is lacking in charm. The only way they can begin to look good is if someone gets physical or nasty against them, which they would then catch on camera and edit and post.

That article ignores that beyond “Mic” and “Mike” as diminutives/derivatives of “Michael” (neither of which do I personally like), there's also “Mickey” (which is how my family has always known me). Looking at “Mic” (though I dislike it), it seems to me it may well often be pronounced like “Mickey” but with the “key” left off.

I think it created an atmosphere of intimidation and thuggery. It was scary and angry. If speakers want to convince others, why would they yell like that? The only idea conveyed is: anger and intent to crush.

It's a stupid way to communicate unless that's what you mean to say. If that is what you mean to say, most Americans will oppose you. So, unless you are an idiot or you don't want to win, you actually do mean to escalate to violence.

I think there used to be a traditional remedy for this sort of thing. A couple of men would stand up and escort the loudmouth out of the room, administering whatever degree of force was necessary. And I don't mean law enforcement. And they wouldn't have been charged with anything for doing so either. There was an understanding that it was part of a man's responsibility in civil society to stand up and administer rough discipline as needed when other men got out of line. It was an understood part of maintaining the manners of a society, it's gone now, and this 60's boorishness is what we have as a result.

Robert Cook said... Was Walker prevented from speaking? No. The people who interrupted his speech had their brief say and left, yes?

Did you ever consider anyone but yourself? They people paid to hear Walker, not a bunch of ignorant self-righteous asshats. If they wanted to hear a bunch of ignorant self-righteous asshats, they would've gone to the nearest "Occupy" gathering or listen to Democrat politicians.

Maybe turnabout is fair play. Maybe others should go and shout down the Occupy asshats everytime they try to speak. Let them see how they like being on the receiving end for a change.

5 minutes of chanting did not "ruin" the event. I am sure all of the non-OWS ticket holders got quite a bit of mileage out of telling all their friends I WAS THERE WHEN THEY DID THAT !! A lot more interesting than listening to Walker's canned, out of date, homages to fascist rule.

The only way they can begin to look good is if someone gets physical or nasty against them, which they would then catch on camera and edit and post.

Look good to whom?

If some Clint Eastwood figure stood up and calmly punched that chief screamer in the mouth, I would cheer.

So would the rest of the people who want a civil society.

That's why those Dirty Harry movies did so well.

I personally have about had it with these progressive types destroying my side's ability to have a speaking event. I don't think it's enough to just sit there and have the event destroyed and hope that onlookers will decide the progressives are the bad ones.

They've been doing this for going on 50 years. How much longer do we have to put up with it before some kind of action or adjustment of norms is taken?

Is every conservative event to be held hostage by whatever progressive wants to ruin it, on the theory that conservatives look bad by taking restrained but effective physical action to stop it?

There is an anger building up out here about this kind of destruction of our right to hear a conservative speaker.

Well, if every politician is behaving in a way that makes one willing to incur arrest and/or a physical beatdown, then yeah...they are all "fair game"

Keep in mind that Walker is getting this kind of attention not just all over the state, but all over the country. That ain't happening to each&every Republican - it isn't as if this is just a typical tactic that the "the left" uses.

Walker's actions have been extreme, and it shouldn't be a surprise (to those who know history) that people are reacting in the manner they have.

The audience at large didn't seem in the least intimidated. They responded--point/counterpoint, one might say--with applause to drown out the protesters.

I don't know--and can't say--if such tactics hurt or harm the protestors' cause, but this is what self-government sometimes looks like...the comfortable, well-healed politicians and their more comfortable, more well-healed campaign contributors occasionally confronted by those among their electorate who are angry.

new york said...no, it's not rude and no it doesn't make him look better.It's really just a "gotcha" moment (sorry for that spelling)it's just an announcement to him and others of his ilk that their time is over, their day in the sun is over, the citizens of america woke up and "We're not going to take it anymore!"

11/5/11 12:03 PM

When are you old 60's assholes going to do the world a favor and kick the bucket?

"Nearly every politician in this country today is extremely unpopular with some portion of the electorate.

"Should all of their speeches therefore be interrupted in this fashion?

"President Obama's included?"

Short answer: yes.

Particularly for President Obama, who has continued our nation's campaign of mass murder abroad while serving as a happy lackey to the financial institutions who have brought near-ruin on this country and countries around the world. (A "near-ruin" that might yet become "total ruin.")

Several other notable properties have also changed hands, including the Merchandise Mart, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Leo Burnett Building....

Unquestionably, REITs offer a lucrative opportunity for many owners looking to cash out.

The main advantage is that sellers who accept payment in the form of REIT stock do not have to pay any taxes until they sell the shares. ''It's a very attractive capital gains situation right now for a lot of folks,'' said Christopher Kennedy, whose family recently sold the Merchandise Mart and its across-the-street neighbor, the Chicago Apparel Center, to the Vornado Realty Trust, based in Saddle Brook, N.J., for $575 million in stock.

THE Kennedy family has been a major presence in Chicago since Joseph P. Kennedy, his grandfather and the father of the late President John F. Kennedy, bought the 4.2-million-square-foot Merchandise Mart from Marshall Field's department store in 1945.

Regarding the recent sale, Christopher Kennedy said: ''We're not sure that we got top dollar, but that's not what we were looking for. We wanted the best currency.'' He added that because of the tax situation, stock provided the best return.

And that is the reasoning of suicide bombers. If I am willing to die, I can do anything.

Interesting analogy.

With that in mind...if one guy was being targeted by 50-100 different suicide bombers (who were just common folks, btw. Our neighbors, our teachers, the gal who drives the snowplow...now suddenly SO PISSED that they are willing to go to these lengths) day after day after day, well...I think that would say quite a bit about that guy.

I mean, one or three kooks every now&then is one thing...but that would be a horse of a totally different color, no?

Cookie, the audience paid to hear Walker, not those assholes. If they want an event to express their views, they can rent a room, invite people to hear them speak. If their event is more successful, they can reap the rewards.

I think it created an atmosphere of intimidation and thuggery. It was scary and angry.

Oh, spare me. Don't pretend you don't know American history. This was nothing compare to the kind of civil unrest this country has seen. And this is only the beginning. These are scary times, and things are gonna get scarier. Your boyfriend Walker is toast.

It's his "Walker for VP" tour and I'll guess that these interuptions will continue. These folks paid their way in and they're free ro voice their displeasure as others are to voice praise. I delight in the raucousness of it all.

"If the very same crew paid to get in, then started beating up other people in the audience who they thought were Walker supporters, would you excuse their actions on the grounds that Walker got their money?"

No, they would deserve to be arrested for such behavior. It's a good thing for them they were just exercising their right of free speech.

"Oh, spare me. Don't pretend you don't know American history. This was nothing compare to the kind of civil unrest this country has seen. And this is only the beginning. These are scary times, and things are gonna get scarier. Your boyfriend Walker is toast."

"...now suddenly SO PISSED that they are willing to go to these lengths) day after day after day, well...I think that would say quite a bit about that guy."

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

I would too.

Except then you look at the facts and find out that what "that guy" did was tighten the budgetary belt a little bit so that people didn't have to lose their jobs and all the bills were able to be paid.

And then you look at the pissed-off ones and find out that they don't think that they, like everyone else in this economy, ought to have to sacrifice even the smallest bit.

And then you realize that it's not "that guy" at all, but petulant infants who think that on account of them being public employees that they can demand that the rest of us protect them from economic reality while the rest of us take it up the butt with their blessing.

And in the mean-while everyone seems to want to give the OWS people ribbons and trophies for participation, because it's just so adorable that they're expressing themselves.

No one could possibly expect the poor dears to understand economics or how jobs are created or take responsibility for their own past judgment or even care that what they demand has enforced the worst poverty and oppression for decades where ever it's been tried. The adults just smile because it's so cute!

"Cookie, if some leftist was giving a speech and some people just stood up and started shouting to keep the leftist from speaking, would you be applauding?"

Hey, turnabout is fair play!

I'm not even necessarily applauding...as I said, I don't know whether such tactics help or hurt them, but this was their choice to be heard in this manner, for good or ill.

My response was less to them than to the notion that citizens shouting at an elected official constituted some sort of unconsciounable "rudeness", as if such high-placed schemers are somehow entitled to the be deferred to.

MnMark: Because a society cannot resolve disagreements peacefully without basic consideration for others.

When one side abandons that, it doesn't stop at shouting people down. It moves on to violence. The same mentality that justifies shouting down someone at an event like this - taking it over, violating the implicit contract they agreed to when they bought tickets not to ruin the event for everyone else - will, next, justify violence to shut up Walker or whomever they hate at the time.

They take the debate out of the realm of a respectful exchange of ideas, and into a realm of violent suppression of ideas they disagree with. First, by shouting them down and destroying the ability of the other side to have a discussion, and then when that fails, by using physical violence to intimidate the opposition.

It also spurs violence by the other side because the screamers have violated the implicit contract of a peaceful disagreement by suppressing their opponent's ability to be heard. It puts the oppressed in the position of those 250 people at the Walker speech who were not screamers: either they passively sit and have their right to hear the speaker destroyed, or they are forced to take the violence to a higher level in response. (Notice how some people were getting out of their chairs, wanting to do something more than be simply victimized by the loudmouths.)

Just watching it made me want to punch some of those loudmouth fuckers in the face. That's what they're leading us towards.

Wow. Couldn't have said it better if I'd spent the afternoon writing on it. Nicely done.

If the other side had responded in kind, nothing of substance would have been said or heard by anyone in attendance. That would include actual on-point questions by people who disagreed with Walker.

The reason that respect is called for in these settings is precisely so that rational discourse can be held. Why does this have to be explained? Cook, didn't you learn that in your 8th-grade civics class?

Republicans tend to think of themselves as a political party with principles and ideas and such things that might be discussed and debated. With Democrats it is more about tribal solidarity and faith-based dogma.

It was "mike" when people knew how to spell. It became "mic" when the teacher unions made them too lazy.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I think it created an atmosphere of intimidation and thuggery. It was scary and angry.

Oh, spare me. Don't pretend you don't know American history. This was nothing compare to the kind of civil unrest this country has seen. And this is only the beginning. These are scary times, and things are gonna get scarier. Your boyfriend Walker is toast.

Shows who doesn't know history. This, and the economy the union slugs and their patrons in the Democrat Party destroyed, is the sort of thing that will insure a Republican landslide next year.

And for the next 4 or 5 Presidential elections.

MnMark said...

The only way they can begin to look good is if someone gets physical or nasty against them, which they would then catch on camera and edit and post.

Look good to whom?

If some Clint Eastwood figure stood up and calmly punched that chief screamer in the mouth, I would cheer.

So would the rest of the people who want a civil society.

That's why those Dirty Harry movies did so well.

Even further back than that.

Read "Huckleberry Finn" about halfway through. That's how you handle a mob. There's always one or two loudmouths and, if you shut them up, the rest will slink away.

And that is the reasoning of suicide bombers. If I am willing to die, I can do anything.

I don't recall you comparing Tea Partiers to suicide bombers when they shouted down, and shut down townhalls meetings. Remember the TownHells? Remember the Tea Party screaming at the Dem reps as they walked to work?

Of course you do, but it's different now because the people you dislike are doing it.

Sorry,It's mic. I've worked my whole life in movies and in music and it's mic. And yes it's miced (or mic'd) and micing. Just google for advice on micing an instrument.English spelling, as others have noted, makes no sense at all.

The loss of collective bargaining makes it more likely than me and my co-workers will be hurt and/or killed on the job. I'm not just going to extremes with that...safety rules & workplace conditions are one of the main reasons my union first organized back-in-the-day. What we do can be dangerous...even deadly sometimes. By making it illegal to have those issues in a contract with the city/county/state, Walker & WIGOP have made it more likely that someone won't be coming home from work at the end of the day.

Now if ya wanna support that, feel free to do so...but don't kid yourself into thinking that people are protesting (in unprecedented numbers) simply 'cause the Gov made cuts to pay&benefits. It goes waaaaaaaaaay deeper than that.

Robert Cook: "No, they would deserve to be arrested for such behavior. It's a good thing for them they were just exercising their right of free speech."

And what about the "right of the people peaceably to assemble"?

Is it your belief that one group's freedom of speech should trump another's freedom to peaceably assemble? Is it inconceivable to you that the shouters made a choice to infringe on another group's rights and that they were in the wrong?

I don't recall you comparing Tea Partiers to suicide bombers when they shouted down, and shut down townhalls meetings.

Please try to find a better "squirrel" than this.

The "town hall" meetings were open Q&A sessions with elected leaders, for the purpose of hearing constituent complaints. The "shouting" at those events was triggered by the blatant unresponsiveness of the politicians to simple direct questions.

The event under discussion was an invited speech, for the purpose of hearing from an elected official.

Zachary Paul Sire does a lot of slavering, Althouse. He's paid to slaver over gay porn. Perhaps he's been reviewing S&M videos lately, hence the theatrical "violent revolutionary" pose he's adopted recently. But just like a queen donning black leather straps and engineer's cap doesn't make him a tough guy, making quasi-revolutionary sounding comments on a weblog doesn't make you a revolutionary either.

After all, Zachary, you spend your days writing paid copy about pornographic videos! It is hard to imagine a more "one percenter"-type job than that! Where do you think you'll end up if the ax ever falls and the great socialist revolution happens, Zachary? Do you think they'll be much sympathy for a person whose only significant job has been as an advertising minion for a most decadent corporate concern?

Before these days are over and done with, it would not surprise me one of these folks resorted to a suicide bombing.

Look up the Haymarket Affair and the Weather Underground's bombing of public places. There are some very evil people out there...the 1 percent who take advantage of the 99 percent who are well-intentioned, if misguided.

This will get uglier before it gets better. One sad result is that we will probably see more security everywhere.

"The loss of collective bargaining makes it more likely than me and my co-workers will be hurt and/or killed on the job. I'm not just going to extremes with that...safety rules & workplace conditions are one of the main reasons my union first organized back-in-the-day. What we do can be dangerous...even deadly sometimes. By making it illegal to have those issues in a contract with the city/county/state, Walker & WIGOP have made it more likely that someone won't be coming home from work at the end of the day."

That's complete bullshit, but I will admit that it sounds good.

Have your workplace safety rules changed?

No?

Then you are not more likely to be injured at work than you were before.

Unions were often organized to address serious abuses. You suggest that only the existence of the union itself maintains the changes that were made, that if the union doesn't exist that everything endures elastic rebound back to pre-union conditions.

The entire notion is absurd.

I would suggest that if union bargaining rights had only dictated safe working conditions and not every other expensive thing under the sun such as where health insurance must be purchased or class sizes or all of the other things that have no business in labor negotiations, you'd still have it because the necessary budget adjustments could have been made.

This is called making your own bed and lying in it.

That unions left *what they were organized to do*, isn't the fault of Walker.

Ann Althouse said..."Oh, spare me. Don't pretend you don't know American history. This was nothing compare to the kind of civil unrest this country has seen. And this is only the beginning. These are scary times, and things are gonna get scarier. Your boyfriend Walker is toast."

So you are slavering after violence. Noted.

11/5/11 12:58 PM

Ann now admit that for a moment you want the cops to administer a little bit of old school police brutality on these OWS clowns. Just to smash the smugness off their faces. You know you do.

The "shouting" at those events was triggered by the blatant unresponsiveness of the politicians to simple direct questions.

Rocking the Town Halls

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”Link

The split between police unions and the Democrats might be the most significant thing that happens as a result of Occupy. Suddenly the "pig" is an issue again. And the Democrats are sucking up to the Occupiers.

Mic check is jargon and is universally spelled "mic check" by those who actually participate in mic checking. Expecting people who do mic checks to spell mic as mike is like asking Czechoslovak border guards to do Check checks. Or, asking lawyers to use some new-age spelling for voir dire, however you pronounce it. Or, how about race ipsa locator, and don't tell me that we should maintain the usual spelling because that's the way the Latins spell it.

Could someone comment on the potential effectiveness of the following strategy for dealing with this kind of deliberate disruprtion of an event?

What if, when the disrupters got started, the host asked everyone around them to take out their cell phones and get photos and videos of all of the individuals doing the disrupting. Meanwhile, the police are called.

When the police arrive, the hosts ask them to arrest the disrupters and charge them with whatever crimes are appropriate: disturbing the peace, etc. Perhaps this can be helped along if every paying event includes a legal statement that no shouting or other disruptions are tolerated and any that occur will be considered trespassing (or whatever is legally relevant) and prosecuted.

In addition to pursuing criminal prosecution of the disrupters, suppose the hosts pursue civil prosecution? It will at the least force the protesters to defend themselves in a civil court, which will cost them laywers' fees or at least force some socialist lawyer to spend his time defending them for free.

If a judgment can be won against the disrupters, then pursue them with every legal means...garnish wages, seize their crappy $500 cars, etc. Presumably there are conservatives with deep pockets who could afford to pay the costs to do this.

In other words, make these people pay through every avenue available in the legal system. Assuming that there were conservative donors willing to foot the bill, might this work?

Also, someone above mentioned bouncers...would it be legal to hire some nice big burly bouncers to muscle these boors out the door, as they do at bars?

Ann is starting to figure out what the left are really all about. They are slavering for violence. They want it desperately. Silencing the opposition through these shouting tactics is just step #1. Physical intimidation will be #2, followed by molotov cocktails and beatings.

@garage--If you remove the editorializing added by thinkprogress to that memo, there's no new information. Unless, that is, that you didn't already understand that the shouting was directed at the evasive bullshit typical of most politicians.

It's not even close to being equivalent to what was in the posted video.

"Mic" is just inner-circle-speak that made its way somehow out into the wider world. Sound engineers knew what they meant, and knew how to say it; who cared if no-one else did? Only now it's the default spelling, and English just got a little more difficult.

Every line of work that doesn't particularly pride itself on its dignity (and some that do) has these abbreviations. "Lede" and "graf" and "hed" are standard journalistic terms, even though there aren't two e's in "lead," and there is no f in "paragraph."

For that matter, there's no d in "refrigerator," so where do we get off calling something a fridge when it's obviously a 'frige' [both apostrophes required]?

Synova, I mostly agree with you about work/safety rules for government employees. Particularly when there is regulatory oversight, as there is.

The first real job I ever had was making manhole covers at Neenah Foundry in 1969. I was a union member, as I was required to be. Neenah Foundry in 1969 was Hell to work at and it would have been much worse if not for the union. Back then, outright deaths were about one per year -- no telling how many early deaths of workers resulted from the black sand nor the cost of the pollution. If not for the unions, it would have been much worse. If I had to go back and make manhole covers again, I'd want to there to be a strong union.

These days, when I work I often work ultimately for state, federal and local governments as a sub-contractor. The greatest fear that I have for my health and safety, jobwise, is that I might drop a pencil on my toe. Those of us who work in these conditions need union health and safety meddling about as badly as Czechs need Check checks.

Public Union THUGS against the American People? This is more than "rudeness"; this is pure FASCIST intimidation by THUGS.

They are going to get their asses handed to them in elections, over and over. They are also fortunate that most American People are peaceful or they would probably get their heads handed to them literally.

I've spent the past several minutes perusing the comments here. What I have gleaned from them is that the Walker-haters (that's what you are...just sayin') have no regard for anything but their own interest. They have no ability to see beyond their selfishness and understand that the give-away gravy train everyone ELSE is paying for can no longer continue. They know that it is a short trip from shouting down a speaker to doing violence, but refuse to acknowledge it. It gives them deniability. They are petulant children who claim to want to help others, but help themselves instead. They assuage their guilt by making others the bad guys. "If I demonize that guy,I won't feel so bad about my pathetic existence."

The left thinks they are winning, so they are stepping up the attacks. If they succeed in recalling Walker, re-elect Obama and oust the GOP from the House I can't imagine what next level of incivility we'll get from them.

I wouldn't mind if the phrase "social services" went away forever. According to the YouTube screen grab, they're apparently being slashed, although I'd bet this is as false as all these budget "cuts" we're supposed to be having. A decrease in the increase isn't a cut. But maybe things are different in Wisconsin.

Someone said the number one rule about our present austerity is that there is no austerity!

My understanding is that fridge came about as shorthand for Frigidair, not refrigerator. But, I can't easily verify that. So, I guess it should be capitalized. oh, no, not capitalism. Why isn't over-reaching government called capitolism? Then the pinks could be against capitalism and the libertarians against capitolism. I like it. Maybe Mikey likes it too -- need to do a Mike check to see.

People of my grandparents' generation commonly referred to the fridge as an icebox. Sounds funny, anymore. Sort of like a glove box in a car.

The martyrdom thing worked out very well for the left in the 60s and 70s... for a different reason than you might suspect.

At that time, demonstrations were quite unique. The U.S. had just emerged from a long period of political quiet.

The anti-war movement mobilized a lot of college kids to march in the streets. The common response, when cops or troops tried to stop property damage and riots was: You can't be mean to our kids like that!

The left learned that middle class people are very indulgent toward their children. They don't want their children to suffer the consequences of their actions, even when the kids are destroying property, rioting and threatening cops.

Middle class people think that their kids should always get a break. In a way, those middle class parents started to look on demonstrating as youthful hijinks, comparable to drinking and partying at Spring Break. The authorities, those parents thought, shouldn't come down so hard on the kids just for trying out their wings and having fun.

The left knows it can count on this dynamic. So, the left is always keen to get middle class kids out there on camera, taunt the authorities and hope for a violent response. Result... martyrs.

If it were not for Ray Wiley Hubbard, Emily Kaitz might be the funniest person in folk music. She has a song titled "Small Medium at Large" which is, quite obviously, about a diminutive fortune teller fleeing the law.

It's pretty laughable that the attempted corporate cock-sucking captured by this video is seen as more essential to the survival of the republic than the idea that there are things more important than money and its retention at the hands of the king's cronies.

It's pretty laughable that the attempted corporate cock-sucking captured by this video is seen as more essential to the survival of the republic than the idea that there are things more important than money and its retention at the hands of the king's cronies.

Maybe so, Ritmo, but you dodged my question.

How do we limit or end the influence of money on politics? Money buys influence because people like money and they want influence because that produces more money.

Do you know of a way to cure this? That will survive constitutional review?

I recognize the evil of which you speak. I haven't got a clue how to banish that evil.

This, to me, is an evil that arises from human nature. Money buys influence.

If you have an answer (and I mean an answer that can be implemented under the Constitution and that will be accepted by the Supreme Court), please tell us.

You will have solved one of the riddles of the ages.

The job of elected government is not to ensure the perpetuation of, as you put it, "evil".

The answer is in democratic cycles that have occurred from the revolution, through the Jacksonian era and T.R. Regardless of what manifestly unobjective Supreme Court appointees have to say, there will be a way back to that renewal. If nothing else, decreasing barriers to entering the "market" for speech and Wall Street's self-deleveraging act are indicators that corruption can only go with so much protection.

"The refusal to regulate campaign contributions and campaign advertising insures that there will be no self-regulation of the supposedly outrageous interruption that occurred here. "

Campaign contributions are not unregulated. Neither is advertising. I charitably assume you mean not regulated enough to your satisfaction. Although I suspect that you actually mean contributions outlawed for groups you disagree with, but ok for unions and of course the payment in kind of media such as the New York Times. Are you really claiming that if we went to public financing of campaigns (I assume from local dogcatcher up the POTUS) then this sort of activity of the left would then cease or they would exhibit some sort of self control? You sure about that? I suspect they would have a whole list of things they want their way on before that happened.

For instance, Ritmo, lots of people seem to think that if Citizens United had been decided differently, that that would have decreased the influence of money.

I don't.

I think what would have happened would be that the Fed would have been empowered to decide which corporate entities have the right to political speech and which don't. The Fed would have been put in the position to license speech.

So, the action would just move all that money aimed at buying political influence to a new arena... buying Federal licenses.

"....captured by this video is seen as more essential to the survival of the republic than the idea that there are things more important than money and its retention at the hands of the king's cronies."

Even more laughable that you came to that conclusion. Where did anyone say it was more essential to the survival or the republic than really anything? I keep forgetting you make stuff up. My bad.

It would be if your previous history didnt strongly indicate that would be your position. How would you address the editorial slant of major newspapers and how it supports a political party is agrees with and opposes a party that is doesn't to the point of mis-characterizing facts or using misleading data? And if people with modest income are not allowed to pool with others like minded, what is the counter balance available to them? Probably easier crying out STRAWMAN!!!!! You should stick with that.

Bribery is a crime and is illegal, regardless of free speech law. Same with making threats. This has not changed at all as a result of Citizens United. Libel is no longer generally a crime in the U.S, so I have no idea what you mean by bringing it into the discussion.

What is not a crime, and should not be a crime, is the free public dissemination of political opinion. Do you not remember the government proclivity to regulate speech by bloggers that was essentially shut down by Citizens United?

Obviously you have problems with the concept of "balance", Jeff. If the NYT had been in the habit in 1963 of buying ad spots in every major television market around the country in order to push a political movement, rather than just report on and reflect the views of its subscribers in New York City in a printed medium with more limited influence, then the Supreme Court might have decided differently all those years back when.

But of course, you are probably one of those conservatives who don't recognize the passage of time and differing, let alone changed circumstances.

Do you not remember the government proclivity to regulate speech by bloggers that was essentially shut down by Citizens United?

No I don't. Nor did I ever fear such a move. To do so would have been more laughable than whatever the appellant complained about in C.U. But then, I recognize that it is only right and proper that regulating the acts of millions of smaller interests is more difficult than regulating the interest of a powerful few. Unless you live under tyranny, or its bastard stepchild, cronyism.

Whenever I see your avatar, Ritmo, it makes me think of the song "Brazil", which makes me think of the film "Brazil", which reminds me of the dysfunctional, authoritarian, centrally-controlled, nightmare society that you and your little unoccupied "Occupy [ ]" friends would like to create.

First of all, Blooming and obama are NOT winning! Union thugs have a bad habit, now, that when someone captures their activities and posts them on the Internet, are large audience walks away disgusted.

For Scott Walker? It brings alive what Nixon once said: "It doesn't matter what they say about you, as long as you're name is on the front page. Above the fold."

And, that was BEFORE the Internet!

All Scott Walker has to do is stay cool. (Reagan really did most of the time. And, he'd smile. And, there'd be a twinkle in his eye.)

Yes, Ann. These idiots chanted for 5 minutes! So what? Where's the good news for them? If it went on for 10 minutes ... the people who couldn't find security ... AND, security itself ... would find themselves on bread lines.

Scott Walker is cool.

He knows that what he's seeing is similar to George Soros funded Code Pink.

"Because unless you're a whore for power, one-man-one-vote is better than big-man-bigger-bribe."

You have a much more idealistic view of human nature than I, my friend. It seems to me that any centrally-controlled human concern, whether it's the State or the Corporation, will end up being corrupted and fueled by bribery, avarice and other machinations.

I prefer a true free market where, if the powerful corporation ceases pleasing its customers, it fails. With central government, you don't get that, because the State (and corporations, in our current, regulated, thoroughly gamed excuse for free market capitalism) relies on the threat of violence and incarceration to uphold it and sustain it.

If the Occupy "movement" weren't so cluttered with the standard undergraduate-level stupidity and pathetic lifestyle gestures and poses, they might actually find a lot more common ground with common people. But that's not going to happen. This is all about team/tribe dynamics, us versus them, not about ideas.

This is more of what I get out of Brazil artistically or politically than Palladian does - that and Bebel Gilberto. I guess if authoritarianism is what breeds this sort of a zest for freedom and good taste, then Palladian must be inhabiting a formidable prison in his own mind.

After Steven Colbert did his "routine," at the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Where he came there costumed as Che Guevera. And, he "picked up" two "leaders" ... Justin and Katchup. And, did a 15 minute routine around this ... I laughed so hard ...

You don't have to be considered a republican to laugh out loud at the antics of a few.

If you haven't seen "Katchup." And, the finger language, coupled to arms-crossed gestures ... You haven't seen anything, yet.

So, no. This story garners laughter far removed from any particular group of voters.

Right on 'dbp' at 11:46 AM

But by the same "luck" the 8 contendahs for the GOP nomination aren't connecting with a majority of voters, either.

I'd hate to see Obama win by being given such a lucky pass. Occupy Wall Street, however, is NOT his friend! And, it's been flushing Bloomberg's reputation down the toilet, too.

You have a much more idealistic view of human nature than I, my friend.

Why, thank you!

It seems to me that any centrally-controlled human concern, whether it's the State or the Corporation, will end up being corrupted and fueled by bribery, avarice and other machinations.

Sure, but that's no reason to encourage it or tolerate it.

I prefer a true free market where, if the powerful corporation ceases pleasing its customers, it fails.

Unfortunately, corporations with enough power have a way of controlling barriers to competition, so this isn't usually the outcome that wistfully romantic libertarians envision.

If the Occupy "movement" weren't so cluttered with the standard undergraduate-level stupidity and pathetic lifestyle gestures and poses, they might actually find a lot more common ground with common people. But that's not going to happen. This is all about team/tribe dynamics, us versus them, not about ideas.

They will, and they reserve the right to have lunkheaded "average joes" along with them no less than the conservatives have all these years with their movements. And if dynamics didn't matter, more attention would have been paid to real and feasible policy ideas, rather than just the caricature that's been made of them. But since they (dynamics) apparently do matter then OWS doesn't and shouldn't make any apologies for making use of them.

Brazil - the Brazil that I knewWhere I wandered with you is in my imaginationWhere the songs of passion and the smile has flesh in itWhere the kiss has art in itFor you put your heart in itAnd so, I feel the glowBrazil...